Morgan Hill – San Jose Insidehttp://www.sanjoseinside.com
A look inside San Jose politics and cultureThu, 21 Mar 2019 06:11:51 -0700en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.264736721Morgan Hill Council Considers Commercial Pot Ordinancehttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/03/11/morgan-hill-considers-commercial-pot-ordinance/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/03/11/morgan-hill-considers-commercial-pot-ordinance/#commentsMon, 11 Mar 2019 16:34:26 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201146533In November, Morgan Hill residents voted overwhelmingly to tax cannabis if it were to be allowed in the city. The 79 percent approval rate gave the council reason to pursue the idea of allowing cannabis businesses in Morgan Hill.

At a Feb. 27 workshop, the council spent several hours hearing from law enforcement, cannabis experts and community members on possibilities for cannabis business in Morgan Hill. The council ultimately directed staff to come back with ordinance language options and answers to council questions about retail, manufacturing and testing.

The council may have some additional motivation for pursuing a cannabis ordinance sooner rather than later. After the passage of Proposition 64—which legalized adult-use cannabis in California and left it up to individual municipalities to decide whether or not the businesses were allowed—the state allowed any city that passed an ordinance before July 2019 to forgo California Environmental Quality Act assessments for the ordinance as a whole. Individual businesses would still need to comply and be assessed.

Despite passing the tax by a large margin, when it comes to allowing cannabis businesses within the city, Morgan Hill voters are not as sure. A majority of Morgan Hill residents–58 percent–voted to approve Proposition 64. But in a study commissioned by the city and conducted by Godbe Research, only 48 percent of Morgan Hill residents supported recreational marijuana sales in the city.

There was much larger support for medical marijuana sales in the city, with 61 percent of respondents supporting it. Voters also approved a 6-to 10-percent tax on adult-use sales, a $10- to $15-tax per square foot on cultivation, a 4- to 10-percent tax on manufacturing and a 2- to 10-percent tax on testing. These taxes could generate more than $500,000 annually in local tax revenues, according to experts.

The council decided by an informal vote not to pursue any more info on cultivation.

David McPherson works for cannabis consulting company HDL, and has come before the council a number of times about the possibility of a cannabis ordinance. He told the council that the difference between recreational and medicinal cannabis is becoming increasingly blurred. Potential patients can now purchase cannabis products available for adult use instead of getting a prescription.

Coming up with a plan for cannabis in Morgan Hill was part of the city’s 2019-to-2020 strategic plan. While council members had differing opinions on the future of cannabis business in the city, all agreed to getting more information from staff.

Yvonne Martínez-Béltran, council member for District B, was vocal about not wanting any adult-use cannabis storefronts in the city. Martínez-Béltran said she was open to other cannabis businesses, and the council agreed pursuing agriculture tech businesses could bring high-paying jobs to Morgan Hill.

Council member René Spring was the most vocal about supporting a future ordinance and cannabis storefronts in the city. “We always talk about (how) we want to be open for business, and this is a business,” Spring said. “Once in a generation, you have a new wave of businesses coming that presents new opportunities. The longer we wait, the more we’ll miss out on these opportunities.”

McPherson estimated cannabis businesses could bring between $350,000 and $700,000 in tax revenue to the city and that Morgan Hill may be able to capitalize off business from surrounding areas like South San Jose, San Martin and Gilroy, creating a potential customer base of 120,000 people.

The city of Morgan Hill and the council have long taken a conservative stance on cannabis, having consistently voted to prohibit medical marijuana business here before Prop. 64 passed statewide.

The city is still several steps away from approving a cannabis ordinance, but the workshop was a step toward creating a plan for cannabis in the city. City Manager Christina Turner told the council at the February meeting that several cannabis businesses had already reached out about bringing their companies to Morgan Hill.

]]>http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/03/11/morgan-hill-considers-commercial-pot-ordinance/feed/1201146533Gov. Newsom Signs Law Bolstering Charter School Transparency, Accountabilityhttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/03/08/gov-newsom-signs-law-bolstering-charter-school-transparency-accountability/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/03/08/gov-newsom-signs-law-bolstering-charter-school-transparency-accountability/#commentsFri, 08 Mar 2019 14:00:42 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201146471Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier this week signed into law Senate Bill 126, which ensures that all private charter schools are held to the same transparency and accountability standards as their public counterparts.

During the debate on the state Senate bill and several pending Assembly measures, charter school advocates expressed concern about the impact of the legislative initiatives aimed at their growing industry, which includes nonprofit and for-profit schools. Public school officials and teacher unions argued that stronger oversight of charter schools is long overdue and will establish an equal playing field for the district that govern them.

“The charter schools industry is concerned with the package of bills that was introduced as they could have a devastating impact on the ability to provide equitable choices and education for all students,” said Kirsten Carr, of the nonprofit Navigator Schools, which operates charters in Santa Clara and San Benito counties.

SB 126, along with Assembly bill 1505, 1506, 1507 and 1508, could change the landscape of how charter schools have been allowed to operate under the existing law established in 1992 and amended in 1998. The bill signed into law this week will make charters abide by the same opening-meeting requirements as traditional public school agencies, and require public elections of board members, who have until now been appointed. The bill also requires conflict-of-interest disclosures by charter board members.

At the deade-old Charter School of Morgan Hill, Executive Director Paige Cisewski said her school already follows all open meetings laws.

Her school “believes in transparency and follows open meeting, conflict-of-interest and disclosure laws,” she said, adding it “adheres to the Brown Act, the Public Records Act and the Political Reform Act—just like district schools.”

“As an integral part of the local public school community, Navigator believes in and practices transparency at our board meetings,” Carr continued. “Our meetings have always followed the Brown Act, are open to the public, have our agendas posted online, and all of our board members adhere to our conflict-of-interest code.”

At the county level, where Santa Clara County’s Office of Education alone oversees more than 20 charter schools, Superintendent Mary Ann Dewan explained that open meeting laws are incorporated into the binding pacts it makes with charter companies as a condition of their permits. “It doesn’t specifically say that (is required) under the existing law. That lack of clarity creates a gray area in some cases for some charter schools and for some authorizers,” Dewan said. “A majority of charter schools do a pretty good job and share in the understanding, but just having that clarity would be helpful and provide transparency with the use of public dollars.”

Four charter-related Assembly bills introduced by the California Teachers Association are the source of much of the charter schools’ anxiety.

AB 1505 focuses on more local control by requiring charter schools to gain authorization and renewal solely with the local school district, and takes away the ability to appeal the local decisions with the county and state boards.

Navigator has two schools authorized through Gilroy Unified and Hollister school districts. However, it was rejected twice by Morgan Hill Unified as well as losing on appeal with the county. More recently, Navigator—which was also unsuccessful in two Salinas school districts—won on a state appeal for its Watsonville charter after failing to do so in Santa Cruz County. Promise Academy is another charter that lost petitions in San Jose Unified and the SCCOE board before appealing to the state.

The Assembly bill would take a hefty workload away from the county office, which reviews charter petitions at nearly every one of its meetings. Dewan acknowledged that some local school districts could reject a charter school petition regardless of what it brings to the table, because of a perceived negative impact on the district.

AB 1506 puts a cap on the growth of charter schools, only allowing new ones to open in place of old charter schools that go out of business. AB 1507 assures that charter schools only operate within its operating district. AB 1508 would change the existing charter law to “allow authorizers to consider facilities, fiscal and academic impact on the district when considering new charter school petitions.” Currently, boards are not allowed to take into account the impact on their district.

“These bills, with the exception of SB 126, as introduced and if passed, can have traumatic effects on students who have already been among the traditionally underserved for generations,” Carr warned. “Charter schools provide an opportunity to incubate and beta test new learning and teaching strategies which can then be shared with other traditional public schools.”

]]>http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/03/08/gov-newsom-signs-law-bolstering-charter-school-transparency-accountability/feed/8201146471Pot Shots: Silicon Valley is on the Verge of a Weed Delivery Boomhttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/20/silicon-valley-is-on-the-verge-of-a-weed-delivery-boom/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/20/silicon-valley-is-on-the-verge-of-a-weed-delivery-boom/#commentsWed, 20 Feb 2019 15:00:04 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201145997Weed delivery services could be blooming soon in the South Bay since state officials lifted restrictions last month. Now all persons 21 and over can have marijuana delivered right to their doorstep anywhere in the Golden State.

Before the announcement, delivery services had been a patchwork network restricted to operating within certain jurisdictions. Now people in California’s prohibitionist cities like Milpitas, which banned pot clubs and personal outdoor growing last year, can order weed from home. “This means if a city has current ban, deliveries may legally take place,” Sean Kali-Rai, CEO of the Silicon Valley Cannabis Alliance, said in an email. “However, banned cities will not receive tax revenue.”

Whether Milpitas council members will revisit the issue at a later date is unknown, but they should consider it, given how San Jose racked up $10.5 million in 2017 and another $13 million in tax revenue last year, and expects higher numbers still in 2019.

Pot industry experts say the state’s decree will help fight a black market blamed for siphoning off tax revenue (legislators are addressing excessive taxation, which has also spurred illegal weed sales, with AB 286, which would suspend state pot taxes for three years). Meanwhile, critics say it eliminates local control from communities that don’t want any reefer madness.

Allowing delivery statewide should make life easier for medical marijuana patients. According to the SacramentoBee, “residents in about 40 percent of the state have to drive 60 miles or more” to buy legal weed, even after voters approved recreational use. These tragic “pot deserts”—better known to some as the ninth circle of hell—are particularly problematic for those who rely on using cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Lucky local stoners will have a plethora of pot options in the near future.

The San Jose City Council approved manufacturing, distribution and testing labs in its borders last month and could explore letting current dispensaries open a second site in town later this year. City officials said those are potential items for the council’s priority list for the next fiscal year but added there are still “many, many competing priorities.”

The deadline to apply to open a brick and mortar store has come and gone in Mountain View, where 10 applicants signed up for four available permits. Santa Clara, Campbell and Morgan Hill are expected to follow; still, Mountain View’s selection of the final four would make it only the second local city to roll out the welcome mat for ganjapreneurs—that is, all goes according to plan.

At the last council meeting, newly elected Councilwoman Ellen Kamei suggested revisiting the city’s stance on pot, a proposal that garnered support from fellow Councilwoman Alison Hicks, Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga and Mayor Lisa Matichak.

What that means for legal weed in Mountain View remains to be seen, but this much we know: there’s no stopping the inevitable cannabis courier boom now that the state deemed it legal despite local laws.

]]>http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/20/silicon-valley-is-on-the-verge-of-a-weed-delivery-boom/feed/4201145997Hearing on St. Louise, O’Connor Sales Canceled, Ruling on Their Fate Expected Any Day Nowhttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/18/hearing-on-st-louise-oconnor-sales-canceled-ruling-on-their-fate-expected-any-day-now/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/18/hearing-on-st-louise-oconnor-sales-canceled-ruling-on-their-fate-expected-any-day-now/#commentsMon, 18 Feb 2019 16:40:39 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201145946There will be no federal court hearing of a request by Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s motion to block the sale of O’Connor and Saint Louise hospitals by Verity Health System to Santa Clara County. U.S. District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner last week canceled the hearing, which had been scheduled for Friday in his courtroom in Los Angeles.

“No appearances by counsel are necessary,” the judge wrote. “The court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings.”

With the filing Friday of the attorney general’s final response to the Verity Health System’s pleadings, Klausner’s ruling could come any time after court is back in session after the Presidents Day holiday.

Becerra is seeking a stay of the county’s $235 million purchase of the two failing hospitals, until the District Court hears his objection to a December decision in U.S. Bankruptcy Court approving the sale.

Verity submitted its objections to Becerra’s request earlier this month.

A stay of the bankruptcy court approval of the sale would cause the deal to collapse, forcing the hospitals to close, according to Verity Health and the county. The purchase agreement that had been approved by bankruptcy court Judge Ernest Robles expires Feb. 28. There were no other purchase offers.

The case was transferred to Klausner’s courtroom on Feb. 11 by District Court Judge Dolly Gee, who had set the Friday hearing after rejecting Becerra’s request for an “emergency” review before the deal closed.

Verity Health System sought Chapter 11 protection last fall in bankruptcy court. If Saint Louise Regional Hospital were to close, the 110,000 people in the communities of Gilroy, San Martin and Morgan Hill would lose their local hospital, and more than 2,000 healthcare workers at the two hospitals would be out of work. The 93-bed Saint Louise hospital is in Gilroy. The 358-bed O’Connor Hospital is in San Jose.

Becerra had initially sought the stay in bankruptcy court, but Robles rejected it Jan. 30. The attorney general’s attempts to block the sale of the hospitals ignited a firestorm of protest from the hospital’s patients, staff, community leaders and Santa Clara County politicians, with rallies and a social media campaign.

Becerra contends that only oversight by his office can ensure that the hospitals provide comprehensive health care services to Medicare, MediCal and other patients. Santa Clara County countered that it is legally required—and eager—to provide these services.

In its Feb. 11 filing, Verity Health said a stay of the purchase “would terminate the county’s purchase of the hospitals, result in their closure, and would eviscerate healthcare access for some of the Santa Clara County’s neediest residents.”

The hospital owners—supported by Santa Clara County and affirmed by the bankruptcy court judge—said the attorney general had no legal authority to get involved in the sale.

In the Feb. 15 filing, filed in Becerra’s behalf by Deputy Attorney General Alicia Berry, claimed the county had refused to provide a range of healthcare services.

Further, she wrote, “State law allows the attorney general to enforce the health and safety protections within his conditions to the fullest extent provided by law.”

Berry also wrote that the bankruptcy court had “abused its discretion by finding that state law did not apply to this sale transaction.”

The attorney general’s office said it was only seeking to protect “vital” healthcare services, and repeated his assertion that predictions by the bankruptcy court, Verity Health and Santa Clara County that granting a stay would force the hospitals to close were “merely speculative.”

“Rather than state that the sale is in danger of collapsing in a declaration under penalty of perjury, County Counsel James Williams attaches a letter to his declaration [that] constitutes hearsay,” Berry said in the filing.

If the sale of the hospitals does close on March 1, nurses at the two hospitals would become county employees under the county’s contract with the Registered Nurses Professional Association (RNPA).

The California Nurses Association, a rival union that represents nurses in a contract with Verity Health that was voided in bankruptcy court, said its members will strike unless the county opens immediate negotiations with the CNA. The nurses told supervisors they had a right to strike because of “unfair labor practices” committed by the county in transitioning nurses into new jobs as county employees.

The court filings in the Verity Health case came the same day that Becerra was in the national spotlight, announcing that he would sue President Donald Trump to challenge the constitutionality of the President’s decision to declare a national emergency along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Klausner was in the national spotlight two years ago when he presided over a trial in which jurors cleared the rock group Led Zeppelin of plagiarizing the melody for its iconic “Stairway to Heaven.” Klausner was in the news again last year, when a U.S. Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco ordered a new trial in the case, ruling that Klausner had made several errors in his instructions to the Led Zeppelin jury.

]]>http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/18/hearing-on-st-louise-oconnor-sales-canceled-ruling-on-their-fate-expected-any-day-now/feed/2201145946Feb. 21 Plea Hearing Scheduled for San Martin Rape Suspecthttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/15/feb-21-plea-hearing-scheduled-for-san-martin-rape-suspect/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/15/feb-21-plea-hearing-scheduled-for-san-martin-rape-suspect/#commentsFri, 15 Feb 2019 20:32:05 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201145941Sharwian Bobian, who is accused of raping a San Martin woman earlier this year when she brought groceries and other supplies to his homeless encampment, did not appear in court for his Thursday afternoon hearing.

Bobian, 43, remains in custody in lieu of $275,000 bail on the charge of rape. He is accused of sexually assaulting the victim the night of Jan. 2 inside Bobian’s makeshift shelter on Llagas Avenue. The victim and her husband, who live in San Martin, had been helping the homeless man for several months prior to the alleged rape.

A Thursday court date for Bobian at the Morgan Hill Courthouse was continued to Feb. 21 for a plea hearing. Bobian is represented by the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office. His lawyer said Bobian was in the building but unable to appear in the courtroom for his hearing, although it was unclear why.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Duong said Bobian must appear at the Feb. 21 hearing. The judge also granted a restraining order against Bobian, prohibiting him from being within 300 yards of his accuser for at least a year. She ordered a Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office deputy to serve Bobian with the protective order immediately after the hearing.

Bobian was initially arrested by sheriff’s deputies the night of Jan. 2, when the victim reported the alleged assault to authorities. However, he was released less than two days later as Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen’s office declined to press charges.

On Feb. 5, the DA reversed course and filed a rape charge against Bobian in relation to the Jan. 2 incident in San Martin. San Jose Police found and arrested him Feb. 8 in the area of U.S. 101 and Yerba Buena Road.

In a brief arraignment at San Jose’s Hall of Justice, Judge Cynthia Sevely raised 43-year-old Sharwian Bobian’s bail from $101,000 to $275,000 and appointed the Public Defender’s Office to represent him. The Santa Clara County Superior Court judge also assigned the case to the Morgan Hill courthouse, which makes things more convenient for the victim and her husband who live just a town over.

The South County rape case drew intense scrutiny when the District Attorney on Feb. 5 reversed course after initially refusing to file charges because of the defendant’s mental illness and the victim’s lack of verbal or physical resistance during the alleged assault. By the time the DA decided to prosecute, however, police had no clue where Bobian went.

The suspect was finally arrested on Friday after a four-day manhunt that authorities tried to avoid publicizing. But officials said the San Jose police officer who ultimately made the arrest recognized Bobian’s face from TV reports prompted by San Jose Inside’s coverage.

Bobian, who’s being detained at San Jose’s Main Jail, is scheduled for a second hearing this week at 1:30pm Thursday in the Morgan Hill courthouse.

]]>http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/12/bail-raised-for-san-martin-rape-suspect-sharwian-bobian/feed/9201145807VTA May Cut Service on ‘Hotel 22,’ Region’s Only 24-Hour Bus Routehttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/12/vta-may-cut-service-on-hotel-22-regions-only-24-hour-bus-route/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/12/vta-may-cut-service-on-hotel-22-regions-only-24-hour-bus-route/#commentsTue, 12 Feb 2019 23:16:26 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201145801That Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) may discontinue some all-day, express and school routes and reduce frequency on others—including its only 24-hour line known as Hotel 22—in response to a looming budget shortfall.

The proposed changes come at the direction of the VTA board in response to a projected $20 million-plus deficit in the coming fiscal year. But the planned cost-cutting measure of halting Route 22 from 1am to 4am has drawn considerable backlash from advocates for the homeless, who rely on the round-the-clock bus line for shelter on cold nights.

VTA officials said they recognize that buses can be safe havens for some riders and plans to meet with a number of safety-net service providers to talk about the potential impacts of limiting service on Route 22.

Commuter routes for South County riders could also be affected, according to draft plans appended to meeting agendas and on the VTA blog. A post by the authority announcing some of the changes said the VTA board is attempting to avoid decreasing transit in the South County because of the high number of commuters riding to and from San Jose.

“Routes 14, 17, and 19 in Gilroy would still be restructured into a bidirectional loop as proposed in the 2017 Next Network Plan, but service levels would not change. Route 16 in Morgan Hill would be renamed to Route 87, but would otherwise remain unchanged,” wrote Holly Perez, public information officer for the authority, in the blog post.

The VTA is proposing to cut two “commute period trips” on Express Route 168, which connects the Gilroy Transit Center with Diridon Station, reducing the number of trips from seven to five “to better match demand without sacrificing rider convenience.”

Perez told the this news organization in an email that additional proposed South County changes include changing the frequency for weekday midday on Route 68 between Santa Teresa Station and Gilroy to every 15 minutes from 30 minutes, eliminating 3 of 9 daily trips in each direction on Express 121, eliminating 2 of 7 daily trips in each direction on Express 168 and discontinuing routes on Express 185.

The VTA said it will continue to consult the public on the 2019 draft transit service plan. Public input is currently being sought for the proposal before its final adoption in May. Perez said the plan is to have it ready for implementation this fall.

VTA scheduled a “virtual meeting” today to continue collecting community input on the changes. According to a VTA blog post, the authority is facing a $26 million deficit in 2019. The proposed changes are set to save the authority $15 million annually, with 70 changes across bus and light rail services in the current draft of the plan.

]]>http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/12/vta-may-cut-service-on-hotel-22-regions-only-24-hour-bus-route/feed/420114580110 Compete for 4 Commercial Weed Permits in Mountain Viewhttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/12/10-compete-for-4-commercial-weed-permits-in-mountain-view/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/12/10-compete-for-4-commercial-weed-permits-in-mountain-view/#commentsTue, 12 Feb 2019 14:00:49 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201145775The deadline came and went for pot purveyors to submit plans for opening up shop in Mountain View, where officials decided to cap the market at two storefronts and as many delivery ventures. While 10 applied, just four will make the cut.

Unlike Hayward, which set a low bar for applicants and was thus bombarded with proposals, Mountain View required prospective cannabis retailers to run background checks and secure properties before making a pitch.

City officials also told them to brace for the cost of doing business in one of the most heavily regulated industries in California, one that would ring up $100,000 or more in municipal fees alone, and one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation.

The result? A field of viable contenders, including heavyweights MedMen and Caliva.

“This is a serious business, so you need serious people and serious applicants,” said Sean Kali-Rai, head of the Silicon Valley Cannabis Alliance, a regional chamber of commerce for the weed sector. “Mountain View created this process that got rid of all the folks with grandiose ideas but no real qualifications, no real follow-through.”

The city of 82,000 will pick the lucky two retailers by lottery in the coming month. Since only a couple businesses applied for delivery permits—namely Grown and Caliva—the outcome for them is a foregone conclusion.

Source: City of Mountain View

Mountain View’s City Council voted 5-2 last fall to authorize commercial cannabis just a month before residents passed a 9 percent tax measure on local pot sales. A few of the five council members in favor of adopting a citywide regulatory framework—the since-termed-out Ken Rosenberg among them—said they interpreted the results of Prop. 64, which two-thirds of Mountain View voters supported in 2016, as a mandate to clear the way for broader legalization.

The October council vote made sizable swaths of the city eligible for cannabis-related conditional use permits. Downtown, the San Antonio Shopping Center and long stretches of El Camino Real all became fair game under the new rules.

However, because it’s so difficult to find landlords willing to do business with people working in a realm considered illegal in the eyes of the feds, most of the applicants proposed locating in and around the same vicinity. Property owners open to working with cannabis entrepreneurs tend to own their parcels outright and, given the legal risks inherent to the industry, tend to charge well above market rate.

Thus, three of the eight potential pot retailers courting business in Mountain View listed addresses on the same old-town strip on the 200 block of Castro Street. Another listed a location about two blocks away on West Dana Street.

Kali-Rai said he expects the finalists—whoever they are—to be up and running before the end of the year. That would make Mountain View just the second city in Santa Clara County to open its doors to the budding pot sector.

San Jose, which was once inundated with more than 100 rogue pot clubs, led the way toward legalization by licensing 16 of them a few years ago. The county and every other city in the region resisted the statewide trend by outlawing commercial pot sales.

But it seems the tide is turning in the South Bay, with Morgan Hill, Campbell and Santa Clara each now plotting a course toward local legalization. Meanwhile, San Jose is getting ready to accept applications for cannabis manufacturing startups come March 1.

]]>http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/12/10-compete-for-4-commercial-weed-permits-in-mountain-view/feed/9201145775Heavy Rainfall Sends Uvas Reservoir Over Spillwayhttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/06/heavy-rainfall-sends-uvas-reservoir-over-spillway/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/06/heavy-rainfall-sends-uvas-reservoir-over-spillway/#respondWed, 06 Feb 2019 14:52:15 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201145562After nearly three consecutive days of rainfall drenched the South County hillsides, Uvas Reservoir began pouring over its emergency spillway this week. While some property owners downstream took precaution, authorities said there was no flood risk associated with Uvas surpassing its capacity.

It was the first time this winter that the 9,688-acre-foot reservoir on Uvas Road, in western Morgan Hill, reached beyond its full capacity. As of about 4:30pm Feb. 4, Uvas Reservoir was at 102.7 percent of its capacity, according to the Santa Clara Valley Water District website.

Shortly after the reservoir reached the spillway, the water district issued a statement assuring residents that there was no immediate threat of flooding.

“Water is flowing over the spillway as is normal when a reservoir reaches capacity,” reads the statement on the SCVWD Facebook page. “Spillways are designed to allow for controlled releases and to help regulate flows. They don’t automatically result in flooding. There are currently NO FLOOD RISKS along Uvas Creek associated with the spilling, nor are there any flood risks anticipated. The creek has reached its peak flows and data readings are showing the flow is decreasing.”

Since Feb. 1, when the latest round of storms hit the west coast, more than 2.5 inches of rain have fallen on Morgan Hill, according to the water district’s website. For the winter so far, Morgan Hill has received about 13.74 inches of rain.

The recent storms have had an impact on most waterways in Santa Clara County. Chesbro Reservoir, just west of Morgan Hill, was at about 93 percent of its capacity the afternoon of Feb. 4—up from about 69 percent before the Feb. 1 storms rolled in. Coyote Reservoir in Gilroy was at about 69 percent of its capacity Feb. 4, up from about 51 percent before the latest storms.

Anderson Reservoir in east Morgan Hill, the water district’s largest reservoir, was about 34 percent full Monday afternoon.

But water district authorities aim to keep that reservoir low during the winter months to prevent flooding upstream when the level reaches the reservoir’s emergency spillway. Anderson is also regulated by state authorities due to the dam’s seismic deficiencies, and must be kept at about two-thirds full or less.

]]>http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/06/heavy-rainfall-sends-uvas-reservoir-over-spillway/feed/0201145562AG Xavier Becerra Doubles Down on Bid to Block County Purchase of St. Louise, O’Connor Hospitalshttp://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/04/ag-xavier-becerra-doubles-down-on-bid-to-block-county-purchase-of-st-louise-oconnor-hospitals/
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/02/04/ag-xavier-becerra-doubles-down-on-bid-to-block-county-purchase-of-st-louise-oconnor-hospitals/#commentsMon, 04 Feb 2019 18:27:30 +0000http://www.sanjoseinside.com/?p=201145549California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is making one last attempt to block the sale of O’Connor and Saint Louise hospitals to Santa Clara County, asking the U.S. District Court for an “emergency” stay before the sale is final March 1.

Becerra submitted his 29-page filing late Friday, just two days after a similar request for a stay was rejected by the same U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge who had approved the hospitals’ sale in late December. If the District Court—where the appeal of the December ruling is pending—grants the stay before deadline, the deal is dead and the hospitals will likely close, according to the county and Verity Health System, owner of the hospitals.

Verity Health System’s request for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last fall led to the sale. The purchase agreement with Santa Clara County expires March 1. Becerra argued in his court request that a stay “would promote the public interest,” and “involves important issues of state law regarding health, safety and welfare.”

Without the stay, “the families and patients served by O’Connor Hospital and Saint Louise Regional Hospital will suffer irreparable injury,” wrote Becerra.

The AG made no mention in his filing of the claim by the county and Verity Health that if he is successful in his legal fight, O’Connor and Saint Louise will close.

In bankruptcy court last week, the attorney general’s staff said simply that they did not believe the hospitals would close, despite the fact that the purchase agreement expires March 1 and there are no other suitors. Becerra’s latest filing repeated arguments that were soundly rejected by bankruptcy Judge Ernest Robles, who said in his Jan. 23 ruling that he was concerned about the impact on county residents if the hospitals were to close.

The attorney general warned that without a stay, the sale would go through and would render his appeal moot. He claimed that only his office could “protect” the wellbeing of county citizens, because without his enforcement of specific conditions, ““the county is free to close the hospitals or eliminate vital healthcare services in those communities.”

This claim was called “just absurd,” last week by Santa County Executive Jeff Smith. Smith was the county offered $234 million to buy the two hospitals to keep—and expand—vital healthcare services, not to shut them down.

In the Feb. 1 documents, Becerra repeated his claim that the county had refused to commit to providing vital healthcare services.

This claim was called “false,” and “misleading” last week by Smith, who said the county had in fact offered the attorney general in mid-January a memorandum of understanding to Becerra’s office, committing the county to providing a wide variety of essential services, 24-hour emergency services and services for MediCal and Medicare patients, which the attorney general had rejected without discussion.

Becerra acknowledged in court papers Feb. 1 that the Jan. 23 ruling by Robles means that the sale order became immediately effective and allows the parties to close the transaction before the federal court could rule on the appeal.

“Without a stay, the attorney general’s appeal regarding an important state law issue affecting public health, safety and welfare will likely be rendered moot.”

Smith said the attorney general’s actions could only be explained by a desire to exert his authority, at the expense of the health and safety of county residents, especially those in Morgan Hill, Gilroy and San Martin. In his Jan. 23 ruling, Robles agreed with that assessment, saying the harm to the attorney general’s office would pale in comparison to the harm to Santa Clara County if the hospitals were to close.

Robles also said that Becerra’s District Court appeal was futile and that he would probably lose. Becerra said the opposite on Feb.1, telling the District Court he is likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the sale.

Robles said Becerra didn’t have legal authority to get involved in the sale of a private non-profit hospital to a government entity.

Smith said in a Jan. 31 interview that the stated goals of quality health care for all are share by the county and the AG. “We’re on the same time team, with the same goals,” he said. “It’s as if someone on the same team is trying to shoot me in the back.”

“We’re going to continue to work as if it’s a done deal,” he said. “We’re anticipating a clean sale order on the First of March.”